Is Group Sex a Higher-Risk Setting for HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections Compared With Dyadic Sex Among Men Who Have Sex With Men?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Group sex has been suggested as a potential high-risk setting for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among men who have sex with men (MSM). We investigated whether group sex is associated with lower condom use during anal sex and higher proportions of STIs compared with dyadic sex among HIV-negative MSM between 2009 and 2012. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from 7 data waves of the Amsterdam Cohort Studies were used. The sample consisted of 465 MSM who either reported both group and dyadic sex (at n = 706 visits) or dyadic sex only (at n = 1339 visits) in the preceding 6 months. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to investigate the association between sexual setting (group vs. dyadic sex), condomless anal sex, and STI. RESULTS: Group sex was reported at 35% (706/2045) of visits. Condomless sex was more often reported during dyadic than group sex (odds ratio, 3.64 95% confidence interval, 2.57-5.16). Men who had group sex were more likely diagnosed as having gonorrhea compared with men with dyadic sex (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.97), but this effect was not retained in the multivariate model. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate within-person differences in sexual behavior during group and dyadic sex among MSM. Men were more likely to use condoms during group sex than during dyadic sex. Thus, for some, group sex may not necessarily be risky for HIV infection compared with dyadic sex. However, group sex may be a higher-risk setting for acquiring STIs other than HIV, such as gonorrhea. Group sex encounters should be recognized as distinct sexual settings with specific risk characteristics that need to be addressed accordingly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".